I didn't initially react to the suggestion, because I'm more concerned with the substance of these issues. However, 'secret coalition' need not involve evil intent, while the 'conspiracy' does (and there are RICO federal laws against it). Also, major evil acts would have to be done with a committed unity of purpose and coalition fails to suggest an enduring unity.
Still, label 9-11 what you prefer, as far as I am concerned, as long as the substance is not avoided. Bush's theory can become the 'secret coalition of Osama bin Laden and 19 Arab hijackers'. I don't offer an alternative, complete theory, but will say that I rather doubt Bush was in on it (he is much more useful as a setup). Paul Z. P.S. Jim D., thanks for the posting on M. Friedman on the Iraq war as aggression -- I shoved it at the right-wing economists here. *************************************************************** THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, P.Zarembka, ed, Elsevier, 2006 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm -- "a benchmark in 9/11 research", reviewer *************************************************************** On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Dan Scanlan wrote: > On Jul 25, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > > > one thing that would help if people talked of "secret coalitions" > > instead of "conspiracies." T > > Good call. > > >
